John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have an understanding--while it is not a unanimous consent request yet, we have an understanding with Senator Kyl that is the last amendment. We are waiting for the agreed-upon language from both leaderships in order to arrive at a time for the vote. It is our understanding that other issues that were part of the equation of when that vote might take place have been resolved. So, as a result, I think Senators can anticipate that, hopefully, sometime soon that unanimous consent request will be propounded. Until then, Senators are free to talk on the treaty and I look forward to their comments. Can I say one word, Mr. President? I apologize. Earlier when I was thanking folks, I meant to, and I neglected to because I jumped over to thank Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher. As we all know, she was a Member of the House, spent a lot of time on separate issues. In fact, she chaired one of the subcommittees of the Armed Services Committee. She logged a lot of miles and worked her heart out to assist in the evolution of this treaty. She has, as we all know, been fighting cancer. She just recently had cancer surgery. We wish her well in her recovery and express our gratitude to her for her work. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I know he has curtailed his remarks. I have cut mine. But I do want to say a couple of things as we try to wind down here. I want to thank the Senator from Arizona for helping to get us to a point where we can vote now. I want to thank Senator Wyden who, 48 hours after surgery, has made himself available to come here and to be able to vote. We are appreciative of that. As we end our debate on the New START treaty, I believe we can say the Senate has done its duty, and done it with diligence, serious purpose, and honor. And I am confident that our Nation's security--and that of the world--will be enhanced by ratifying this treaty. When we began this debate 8 days ago, I quoted Chris Dodd's farewell address, in which he reminded us that the Founding Fathers had designed the Senate with these moments in mind. I think over the past week we have lived up to our moment. Senators have had opportunity to speak and debate. The fact is, we have considered this treaty--a less complicated or far-reaching treaty than START I--for longer than we considered START I and START II combined. Admiral Mullen summed up our interests in this treaty in a compelling way. He said: I continue to believe that ratification of the New START Treaty is vital to U.S. national security. Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards. The sooner it is ratified, the better. I think that is exactly right, and it is important to keep our fundamental charge to protect America foremost in our minds. But I think there is something more to think about now. In the back and forth of debates like this, as we dispute details and draw dividing lines, it is easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the decision we are making. Because sometimes, when we repeat and repeat and repeat certain words and phrases they become routine and ritual, and their true meaning fades away. When we argue about the difference between 700 delivery vehicles and 720, we may forget that in the final analysis, regardless of where we stand on the START treaty, this is one of those rare times in the U.S. Senate, one of the only times in all our service here, when we have it in our power to safeguard or endanger human life on this planet. More than any other, this issue should transcend politics. More than any other, this issue should summon our best instincts and our highest sense of responsibility. More than at almost any other time, the people of the world are watching us because they rely on our leadership and because this issue involves not simply our lives and the lives of our children but their lives and the lives of their children as well. So it is altogether fitting that we have debated and now we decide not in a campaign season, but in a season that celebrates and summons us to the ideal of peace on Earth. Yes, we have contended about schedules. Yes, the constant chatter on cable speculates about whether we would approve the treaty in time to get out of here for Christmas. But the question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday; the question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare. For whatever our faith, the right place for us at this time of year, no matter how long it may take, is here in the Senate where we now have a unique capacity to give a priceless gift not just to our friends and family, but to our fellow men and women everywhere. When Robert Oppenheimer left Los Alamos after the atomic bomb was dropped, he said, ``The peoples of this world must unite or they will perish. This war, that has ravaged so much of the earth, has written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men to understand. . . . By our works we are committed, committed to a world united, before this common peril, in law and in humanity.'' That is what brings us to this moment. Last night, a friend called my attention to the meditation of Pope John Paul II when he visited Hiroshima. He said that from the memory of those awesome mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki we must draw the ``conviction that man who wages war can also successfully make peace.'' This month in homes across this land, Americans are honoring moments in the history of faith that enshrine the values that guide us all regardless of faith. We in the Senate, only 100 of us in a world of billions, should be humbled and proud that in this month we have the privilege of reducing the risks of war and advancing the cause of peace. So think of what is at stake here and of the role we now have to play, not only in the governing of our country but literally in the life of the world. Here more than ever our power to advise and consent is more than some arcane procedural matter. The Framers of the Constitution created the Senate with a vision of statesmanship, that here narrow interests would yield to the national interest, that petty quarrels would be set aside in pursuit of great and common endeavor. The best of our history has proven the wisdom of that vision. There was that defining moment when Senator Daniel Webster stood at his desk in this Chamber to address the fundamental moral issue of slavery. The words with which he started were stark and simple, and they should guide us today and every day. He said: ``I speak not as a Massachusetts man, nor a northern man, but as an American.'' This is the very definition of what it means to be a Senator. To speak not for one State but for one America. To remember that the whole world is watching. So it is now, and so it has been across the decades during which so many Presidents and Senators of both parties, citizens in every part of the country, have struggled and at critical turning points succeeded in pushing back the dark frontier of nuclear conflict. The efforts have not always been perfect; nothing in life or policy ever is. But as we end this debate now, let us take our own step forward for America and for the world. As stewards of enormous destructive power, we too can become the stewards of peace.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to mention a distinguished Ambassador who is leaving Washington after a regrettably short tenure. Batu Kutelia, Ambassador of Georgia to the United States, is returning to his country to assume an important post in his government as Deputy National Security Adviser. Although Ambassador Kutelia was only in Washington as Ambassador for less than 2 years, he and his wife Sofia and their young family will be missed by the many friends they leave behind. He will also be remembered for reinforcing and advancing his country's relations with the United States. Ambassador Kutelia represented Georgia in Washington in challenging times. Following the 2008 war with Russia, in which he served as First Deputy Minister of Defense, the Ambassador helped facilitate the economic and political assistance necessary to rebuild and continue Georgia's economic development. He also ensured that Georgia's agenda within the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership was ambitious and serious. Ambassador Kutelia's work with our government on the training of Georgian forces participating in the NATO International Security Assistance Force mission expedited their successful deployment to Afghanistan. Ambassador Kutelia possesses a sophisticated understanding of Congress and its responsibilities within our democratic system. He was extremely accessible, maintaining strong working relationships and friendships with many Members and staffers. During the Ambassador's tenure, it is a fact that Georgia had a persuasive and effective representative whose passion for his nation never flagged and whose engagement with Congress far exceeded that of bigger countries with much larger embassies. Rarely did a Georgian official pass through Washington without at least one interaction with Congress, an admirable record which did a great deal to stimulate interest and engagement between the United States and the country of Georgia. Many of us on Capitol Hill have come to know and respect Georgia and its people. Georgia's future will be written by young leaders such as Batu Kutelia. I cannot help but believe that the country's future will be bright if it continues to produce leaders of his caliber. I wish him the best at his coming service in Tbilisi.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do object. I want to say to the Senator that I am delighted to have a discussion with him about this particular issue. But I think given the efforts we have made thus far to deal with a fixed set of amendments has been affected somewhat by some of those amendments that were filed late, and also not germane, requiring colleagues at the last minute to consider a lot of issues on the floor that are not pertaining directly to the treaty itself. The subject the Senator wants to bring up and talk about, which is Russian cooperation on Iran, is absolutely essential to us as a matter of foreign policy. I want to join with the Senator in emphasizing that. I look forward to hearing his comments about it. I think we can have an important colloquy that could add to the record of our discussions with respect to this treaty without negatively impacting the direction we are moving in at this point.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in, I think, 7 days, I have not made an objection to an amendment that we tried to take up. I am sensitive to that because we, obviously, want to provide as much opportunity to go into these issues as is possible. I say to my friend from South Dakota that I am happy to stay here with him and do as much as we could do to impress on anybody the importance of the issue he is raising. But if we stayed here and went through the process of a vote, which would conceivably take us a lot longer in terms of the other amendments we have to finish tomorrow morning, as well as keep the Senate in even later, only the votes--I think we had only one motion to table. Almost every vote has been straight up or down. The votes have been 60 to 30, or 60-something to 28, or something like that. I think the reason is that there is a fundamental flaw in the approach of this particular amendment and the others we have had because they seek to prevent the treaty from going into force. The language says ``prior to the entry into force of the New START Treaty,'' the President has to do a series of things. Some of those may read in a fairly straightforward and literal way, but they are not necessarily what can be done immediately or are even subject to our control, in which case we wind up with a treaty that we have actually partially ratified because it cannot go into force, and it may never go into force, depending on what happens with some of those things that are out of our control. There are a lot of reports requested on one thing or another. I think there is a more effective way to go at this, personally, that doesn't wind up with a negative impact on the treaty, where we are veering from our military and national intelligence leaders who would like to see this put into effect as rapidly as possible. The effect of this is not to let that happen as rapidly as possible. The Senator is 100 percent correct about our concern about Iran. We need Russian cooperation in order to ever have a chance of enforcing the sanctions that have been put in place, as well as finding the other tiers of cooperation that are going to be critical as we go forward, absent Iranian shifts in policy. The fact is, what has happened through Russian cooperation right now is that the most significant sanctions we have been able to put in place to date have been put in place. They were largely achieved because of the relationship President Obama has achieved with President Medvedev and the reset button and the sense that we are coming together, not going apart. It is easy for us in the Senate to stand here and say we have to require this, we have to require that. A lot of these things I have found increasingly--particularly in this time I have been chairman of this committee--a lot of the things we sometimes do with good intention in the Senate actually very significantly complicate the life and work of our diplomats who spend as much time trying to meet some kind of certification as they do doing the diplomacy they are meant to do. I am happy to work with the Senator as chairman of this committee. We will have hearings early next year on this topic of Iran and where we stand with respect to that nuclear program. We will look at this issue of Russian cooperation, and we will look at it hopefully within the context of a START treaty that is going to be ratified by the Duma and implemented and that can only strengthen the resolve of both our countries to focus on the challenges of Iran. I thank my colleague. I have been in that position before when we have not been able to get an amendment in. I might add, the amendment was filed a day and a half after cloture was filed. I said to Jon Kyl very clearly that we were going to try to be as flexible as we could. That flexibility needed to be mostly focused on those amendments that directly affect the treaty or are to the treaty in its most direct sense. If we raised a point of order, this would be an amendment that would be found to be not germane because it is outside those direct treaty issues. With that in mind, I have taken the position I have taken. But I look forward to working with my colleague, if we can, as we go forward from here.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arizona is prepared to yield back time, and I will also yield back time. Cloture Motion

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for his willingness to try to do exactly what we have just done, and I pledge to him that I will work as hard as possible on our side to rapidly move on these amendments and to give them time. I would ask for the cooperation of colleagues who want to speak on the treaty as a whole, that they not do so at the expense of being able to move an amendment. So if colleagues would cooperate with us, we will certainly, in between any activity on amendments, try to accommodate anyone who wants to talk on the treaty. We are currently working staff to staff and negotiating out these amendments, and on some it may be possible to accept them. We will certainly try to avoid any rollcall votes, if possible. I know a number of colleagues have asked for some rollcalls on some amendments which may not be acceptable. So with that understanding--

Mr. KERRY. No, Senator Shaheen is here managing together with the Senator from Maryland while we are negotiating. So Senator Risch would be in order to move on an amendment immediately.

Mr. KERRY. That is correct. Mr. President, we would welcome that, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this won't take too long. Let me say, first of all, I thank the Senator for bringing this up. Let me underscore: This is one of the sort of let's see if we can find a problem, and if we can find a problem, make it into a bigger problem, and then amend the treaty because amending the treaty itself--this amendment seeks to amend the treaty, so here we go right back down the road of the old ``let's open up the negotiations again'' argument. We have been through it so many times here. It has appropriately been rejected by colleagues. I think the last vote was something like 66 to 30 on whether we will amend the treaty. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to raise it, but let me speak to the substance. Going back in history on the START treaty, which is why this is a complete red herring--if you go back in the history of the START treaty, you will recall that the Soviet Union deployed 10 warheads, 10 MIRV warheads on an SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile, and Russia deployed some 36 of those SS-24 rail-based launchers the Senator is referring to at the height of their deployment. But to comply with START I and with START II, which interestingly, we worked together on in terms of START II even though the Russians never ratified it--and the reason they didn't ratify it is because we took unilateral action and withdrew from the ABM treaty, and they were mad about it. That is why what we do matters in this relationship. We ratified the START II treaty; they didn't. So the things we choose to do have an effect. The fact is, thanks to our colleague to my right, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and Senator Nunn, who had the vision to put together the threat reduction program, that program set out to destroy Russia's SS-24 ICBMs and rail-based launchers. This is important for all those people who have come to the floor and argued repeatedly that Russia has acted in bad faith in all of these efforts. Take note that Russia continued those cooperative efforts and continued to destroy those rail-based launchers even though they had not signed on to START II. Guess what. The last Russian SS-24 launcher was eliminated in 2007. Now START I had a specific sublimit on mobile missiles and on rail mobile missiles. So the START treaty's definition, as a result of those two sublimits, the START treaty's definition needed to cover both the rail mobile and the road mobile launchers that were deployed at the time of the treaty. They were both put under the same roof, and that roof was the START treaty's definition. Just like the Moscow Treaty, the New START treaty contains just a plane limit, an overall limit on ICBMs and ICBM launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers. We have the two categories and heavy bombers with no sublimits. That means the characteristics of strategic offensive arms limited by the treaty, in particular the deployed and the nondeployed launchers of ICBMs and the deployed ICBMs and their warheads, those characteristics do not hinge on the treaty's definition of mobile launchers of ICBMs. We don't want them to because we want this big umbrella that covers all of it, which we have the ability to verify. If we look at exactly what the treaty says, it says the following-- and I don't know which lawyers are arguing about this, but the lawyers involved between the Russians and the United States and the lawyers involved on the negotiating team and the lawyers at the State Department are not arguing about this. They understand exactly what the treaty says. Here is what it says. Article II, 1(a) of the treaty sets the limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers. That is really simple. It is very straightforward--700 ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers. We have the flexibility to decide how many of each of those we want to have. We had a debate previously with our colleagues about how many we would have. But that is pretty straightforward. There is no ambiguity in that. Where is the ambiguity--700, all three, and we believe we can count all three. Paragraph 12 of part 1 of the protocol defines deployed ICBM as an ICBM that is contained in or on a deployed launcher of ICBMs. That is pretty obvious. A launcher is a launcher is a launcher. Paragraph 13 of part 1 of the protocol defines deployed launcher of ICBMs as an ICBM launcher that contains an ICBM and is not an ICBM test launcher, an ICBM training launcher or an ICBM launcher located at a space launch facility. Those are the only three exceptions. That is it. There is no ambiguity. It seems to me pretty darn straightforward that a rail mobile ICBM, if either side decided to deploy it, obviously falls under the 700. It is so obvious that we should not have to risk renegotiating the entire treaty over something as obvious as that. I might add, a nondeployed launcher of a rail mobile would fall under the 700 limit in terms of the launchers. I just ask my colleagues to look carefully at this. It would be highly improbable. The Senator from Tennessee earlier today gave a terrific speech, Mr. Alexander. He said: What is all this fuss about? In the end, we are going to have thousands of these things that can destroy the whole planet anyway. That came from a person who is pretty thoughtful on these issues, who understands that you have to put this in a context. We are not talking about the Cold War right now. We are not talking about the Soviet Union right now. We are talking about a country with which we have a very different relationship and where we have a whole set of combined interests, and you have to put this treaty into that context. It is highly unlikely that during the duration of this treaty with the Russian Federation, after years of working with the United States to destroy the weapons and work cooperatively under Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn's program, it is unbelievably hard to believe they are going to divert what we know to be their very limited resources and infrastructure from their planned deployment in order to do new mobile--we have a planned deployment of new mobile-based ICBM forces, and suddenly to have them go out and build and deploy rail mobile launchers, which we would observe unbelievably quickly under our national technical means. The simple answer is that we know what they are going to do. We have a strong capacity to track what they are doing. We have every reason to believe the Russians agree with what I just said about the allocation of resources. The fact is, the resolution the Senate will vote on, in order to guarantee that we are certain about this, requires the President to communicate to the Russians in the formal instrument that ratifies the agreement, when we ratify it, assuming we do it, will ratify the understanding of the United States that the treaty would cover rail mobile launched ICBMs and their launchers, if Russia or the United States were crazy enough to try to build them. So for the life of me, I don't know what you can do more than that. But we certainly are not going to reopen the treaty for the basis of a nonambiguity like that.

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding that the Russian referred to in that article is saying how difficult it is to do the rail-based. But here is the simple reality. If they build it, it will count, end of issue. That is why this is unnecessary. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, at this time there is, until we have an opportunity--we were going to work this out with Senator Kyl after the vote. So I object to it at this moment.

Mr. KERRY. I believe Senator Kyl had two amendments he wanted to get up at this point in time.

Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Idaho requested to go to his next amendment, which is No. 4879. That was the one the Senator from Arizona and I were talking about with respect to an issue we wanted to work out with the Parliamentarian before we go to it. I think the Senator and I had agreed he would like to go to two other amendments next in line. We will come back to this issue.

Mr. KERRY. I agree with that completely. We have a fairly limited list, and I think it is possible to move through them rapidly. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Arizona to do so. Madam President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. KERRY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to table the Risch amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent this be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I further ask that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions beginning December 27 through 11:59 a.m., Monday, January 3, 2011.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 701, S. 3903.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I further ask that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.